What is 394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel v. ITO authority for?

Reasons for reopening an assessment must be specific and not vague, scanty, or based on borrowed satisfaction. The Assessing Officer must quantify the escaped income.

How many judgments cite 394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel v. ITO?

295 judgments on BharatTax cite 394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel v. ITO (338 ITR 51), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 68, Section 133(6), Section 142(1).

394 ITR 146 (Guj.) 2. Varshaben S. Patel v. ITO (338 ITR 51)

M/S. Mono Orion Food India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

ITA 2001/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…applying the proposition laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in G&G Pharma India (supra) we hold that the reopening of assessment is bad in law" 16.3 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs ITO and another, reported in 338 ITR 51 (Delhi) has under similar circumstances held as follows: “For the AY. 2003-04, the return of income of the assessee company was accepted u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and was not selected for scrutiny. Subsequently, the 9 I.T.A. Nos. 2000 & 2001/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/s. Mono Orion Food India Pvt. Ltd. Assessing O…

M/S. Mono Orion Food India Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the assessment years are allowed

ITA 2000/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S. Godara]

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…applying the proposition laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in G&G Pharma India (supra) we hold that the reopening of assessment is bad in law" 16.3 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs ITO and another, reported in 338 ITR 51 (Delhi) has under similar circumstances held as follows: “For the AY. 2003-04, the return of income of the assessee company was accepted u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and was not selected for scrutiny. Subsequently, the 9 I.T.A. Nos. 2000 & 2001/Kol/2018 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/s. Mono Orion Food India Pvt. Ltd. Assessing O…

M/S. Raghvi Finance Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4565/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2005-06 Raghvi Finance Ltd. Vs. Ito 10, Community Centre-Ii, Ward-15(1) Ashok Vihar, Phase-Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi 110 063 Pan Aaacr5879F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…Court wherein the notice under Section 148 simply on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing has been quashed. The same is as under:- (i) Sarthak Securities Co. P. Ltd. Vs ITO – [2010] 329 ITR 110 (Delhi). (ii) Signature Hotels P. Ltd. Vs. ITO – [2011] 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). (iii) PCIT Vs. G And G Pharma India Ltd. – [2016] 384 ITR 147 (Delhi). (iv) PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. – [2017] 396 ITR 5 (Delhi). (v) PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd. – [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Delhi). 10. Learned DR has also relied upon few decisions of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. However, when there are large number of decisions…

Krishna Print Pack, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Meerut

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5135/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2009-10 Krishna Print Pack, Vs. Ito, 172, Anup Nagar, Fazalpur, Ward-1(3), Rhotak Road, Meerut. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Pan: Aagfk2165A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri C.S. Anand, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2019 Order

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 147oSection 148Section 40A(3)

…le material while reopening the assessment and the same was reopened merely to verify the financial transactions, therefore, such reopening is illegal. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions:- (i) Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 338 ITR 51 (Del); (ii) Pr.CIT vs. G & G Pharma India Ltd., 384 ITR 147 (Del); 5 (iii) Pr. CIT vs. RMG Polyvinyl (P) Ltd., 396 ITR 5 (Del); (iv) Pr. CIT vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt. Ltd., 395 ITR 677 (Del); and (v) Oriental Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 378 ITR 421 (Del) 7. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitt…

Neelkanth Plywood Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 18(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6702/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Neelkanth Plywood Pvt. Income Tax Officer Ltd. C/O Anil Jain Dd & Co. Vs Ward – 18 (1) Chartered Accountants, 611, New Delhi Surya Kiran Building, 19 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 Pan No.Aaacn0805B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. Neelkanth Plywood Pvt. Income Tax Officer Ltd. C/o Anil Jain DD & Co. Vs Ward – 18 (1) Chartered Accountants, 611, New Delhi Surya Kiran Building, 19 K. G. Marg, New Delhi-110001 PAN No.AAACN0805B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh.Anil Kumar Jain, CA Respondent by Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 02/07/2019 Date of Pronouncement: /08/2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.08.2018 of the…

Rhino Footware Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 2(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2009/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 147Section 148

…h Court wherein the notice under Section 148 simply on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing has been quashed. The same is as under:- (i) Sarthak Securities Co.P.Ltd. Vs. ITO – [2010] 329 ITR 110 (Delhi). (ii) Signature Hotels P.Ltd. Vs. ITO – [2011] 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). (iii) PCIT Vs. G And G Pharma India Ltd. – [2016] 384 ITR 147 (Delhi). (iv) PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. – [2017] 396 ITR 5 (Delhi). (v) PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt.Ltd. – [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Delhi). 10. Learned DR has also relied upon few decisions of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. However, when there are large number of decision…

Instyle Infrastructure P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-12(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1268/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 147Section 148

…h Court wherein the notice under Section 148 simply on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing has been quashed. The same is as under:- (i) Sarthak Securities Co.P.Ltd. Vs. ITO – [2010] 329 ITR 110 (Delhi). (ii) Signature Hotels P.Ltd. Vs. ITO – [2011] 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). (iii) PCIT Vs. G And G Pharma India Ltd. – [2016] 384 ITR 147 (Delhi). (iv) PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. – [2017] 396 ITR 5 (Delhi). (v) PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt.Ltd. – [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Delhi). 10. Learned DR has also relied upon few decisions of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. However, when there are large number of decision…

Luxe Trading and Holding (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 15(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6677/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 147Section 148

…h Court wherein the notice under Section 148 simply on the basis of report of the Investigation Wing has been quashed. The same is as under:- (i) Sarthak Securities Co.P.Ltd. Vs. ITO – [2010] 329 ITR 110 (Delhi). (ii) Signature Hotels P.Ltd. Vs. ITO – [2011] 338 ITR 51 (Delhi). (iii) PCIT Vs. G And G Pharma India Ltd. – [2016] 384 ITR 147 (Delhi). (iv) PCIT Vs. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. – [2017] 396 ITR 5 (Delhi). (v) PCIT Vs. Meenakshi Overseas Pvt.Ltd. – [2017] 395 ITR 677 (Delhi). 10. Learned DR has also relied upon few decisions of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. However, when there are large number of decision…